It was designed that way from the start, that’s the whole point of the Senate.
It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which was the original intent and still functioning.
It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which was the original intent and still functioning.
You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now).
There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this.
There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-re...
Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. That doesn't mean they ought to be.
I/the poster is claiming small states should be allowed to be "bullied" by larger states since smaller states have less people, and thus, are less important.
If you think it’s such a benefit, then move there. That’s your right as a citizen.
But almost no one does because that small political benefit doesn’t outweigh the many benefits that population centers enjoy.
I'd understand if someone proposed, for example, increased federal aid for smaller states that don't have as many support systems, but voting power seems like the wrong way to do this. (Same reason we don't use laws to fix inequality).
The Senate is a counter-balancing force to the population distributed House of Representatives. The Senate is meant to represent each state as an equal and autonomous member of the union.
Your snark aside, horse-trading in the senate seems to be what accomplished small state agendas.
The US government was never meant to be a democracy, and certainly not one with fully equal representation across states.
The majority of the country already has a majority of the representation — only 1 in 10 states has the minimal representation, thus extra voting. The majority of votes in the House, by a wide margin, are distributed based on population with less than 3% going to minimums in excess of population.
But if you truly believe this is a better way, implement it on a regional or state level first to model for the rest of the country how well it works. That’s the beauty of autonomous states — we can try before we fully commit.